Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie: Dems lost because they "took they bait," meaning "Wall Street money." [View all]
Gothmog
(154,582 posts)137. Sanders whole campaign was based on a so-called revolution that never materialized
A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
249 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie: Dems lost because they "took they bait," meaning "Wall Street money." [View all]
ucrdem
Jan 2017
OP
Well, at least he lost to, according to some, the best candidate for president, ever...
dionysus
Jan 2017
#17
Will he ever stop trashing the party he used to run with under our brand then went back to ...
brush
Jan 2017
#89
If it's so dumb, give a sound argument as to why. Did he not retreat to being an Independent again..
brush
Jan 2017
#208
Try reading some of the other post in this tread. You're out of step with most here. Now that's dumb
brush
Jan 2017
#213
Sanders lost because he failed utterly to appeal to voters beyond a narrow base of white voters
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#147
Let's see. Russ Feingold is a Democrat. Russ lost. Therefore Russ must have taken the "bait"
still_one
Jan 2017
#3
your correct. In Wisconsin for President it was Hillary 46.5% to trump 47.2%
still_one
Jan 2017
#117
Meanwhile, the president-elect is the most Wall Street friendly candidate EVER!
Garrett78
Jan 2017
#190
so that is why the incumbent republican Ron Johnson, right to work, anti-union candidate won.
still_one
Jan 2017
#164
I don't think it was progressives that lost Wisconsin for Clinton/Feingold.
Goblinmonger
Jan 2017
#167
No doubt it is purple, however, if those who had voted Jill Stein, who I assume were progressives, v
still_one
Jan 2017
#172
Part of his appeal is that he never stops fighting for what he believes in
HoneyBadger
Jan 2017
#102
Apparently he believes in the RW lie that there's no difference between the two parties.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#107
Being an "anti-establishment candidate" requires the belief that the Dems and the GOP are the same.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#235
He only ran as a Dem because he needed their money & organization to run nationally for Pres.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#237
Same as when he ran out the clock to avoid reporting at the end of his campaign
seaglass
Jan 2017
#112
He's still required to file that Personal Financial Disclosure each year as a member of the Senate.
George II
Jan 2017
#125
But we have to remember, Jane Sanders was in charge of media buys, and a person in that position....
George II
Jan 2017
#124
you are correct that lone individuals who don't take money will usually not even be heard of
JCanete
Jan 2017
#49
If they knew why do you think they wouldn't care? seriously. I'm with you, the knowing is the hard
JCanete
Jan 2017
#72
They are swayed daily, by a media who's job it is to sway them. Could we effectively counter-message
JCanete
Jan 2017
#80
And like Sanders, the average vote doesn't understand Federal campaign finance laws.
George II
Jan 2017
#122
Bernie is facing reality & offering constructive criticism so we can learn from our mistakes
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#11
Or Martin Lockheed, the sugar industry, etc, we must not shield ourselves into thinking Sanders
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#200
His message isn't middling. I'm not going to defend the contributions as coming only from
JCanete
Jan 2017
#210
What did the admission of net worth say. I'm just not familiar with this story. nt
JCanete
Jan 2017
#214
I have no idea what you're looking at. His net worth for a Senator is like at the bottom. He has
JCanete
Jan 2017
#216
I think this started out as seeing a large increase in his net worth, more than his salary as
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#219
It actually totally can compute because assets, specifically property values can jump that high
JCanete
Jan 2017
#220
I did not do the report on his net worth when he was claiming he only had $350,000 net worth, I did
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#221
You are oversimplifying something. Sanders laments the power of money on our elections, so I don't
JCanete
Jan 2017
#218
No, he's not. It's always one-way with Sanders, he is incapable of listening to any other viewpoint
SharonClark
Jan 2017
#64
It's constructive criticism only when Sander's people do so. When Clinton supporters do the same
LanternWaste
Jan 2017
#225
Trying to be considerate of big money's interests while helping the middle class and the poor
JCanete
Jan 2017
#31
Exactly! It makes no fucking sense at all, which is why we keep losing. Glad you're keeping up!
JCanete
Jan 2017
#70
Let me ask you something. When you post, do you just do it for the circle jerk, or do you want to
JCanete
Jan 2017
#79
I'm not talking about anything illegal. I never said the Clinton's did anything illegal. I don't
JCanete
Jan 2017
#83
Graft is illegal. Promising favors in return for political donations is a crime.
ucrdem
Jan 2017
#87
But adopting policies that are acceptable to corporations so that they don't destroy you, and so
JCanete
Jan 2017
#90
Yes but if it happened there would be evidence -- meetings, emails, gifts, memos, wire transfers,
ucrdem
Jan 2017
#91
Hey ucrdem, appreciate the civil discussion! I'll just say that I don't think anything like that has
JCanete
Jan 2017
#94
heh...okay. If you want to attribute anger or upset to my post that's fine. I wish instead, that
JCanete
Jan 2017
#84
Except for a few small matters ... Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, vote suppression and other repug cheats
brush
Jan 2017
#123
All of which are effective by the grace of our own intentionally ineffectual media, owned by our own
JCanete
Jan 2017
#152
It tends to make some voters stay home of vote 3rd party. Not a good tactic if you want your party..
brush
Jan 2017
#160
Sanders ran solely for media coverage and the latest comments continue this pattern
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#150
okay... media coverage is kind of important when you are delivering a message to the American
JCanete
Jan 2017
#151
That Sanders was not really trying to be the nominee but is only concern about his media coverage
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#154
I don't think Sanders thought he could win, given the upward battle. I think he was ready and
JCanete
Jan 2017
#155
Well as a nation, we do tend to have a pretty certain trajectory, that entirely by coincidence I"m
JCanete
Jan 2017
#179
No I don't know that that's the reason, and you just totally ran away from your own bullshit to come
JCanete
Jan 2017
#181
Resorting to ad homonyms does not strengthen your argument, but since you're the expert, you
JCanete
Jan 2017
#186
Sanders was treated very fairly-look at the number of times he appeared on the Sunday shows
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#158
editing cuz, post was needlessly dickish: I don't know if using one metric, "Sunday talk shows,"
JCanete
Jan 2017
#161
These media appearances were important to Sanders and are helping him sell his latest book
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#185
And for some of his appearances around the country, if you want to see him you have to buy a book...
George II
Jan 2017
#193
I agree that Sanders is in the process of cashing in on the media coverage earned during primary
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#195
wow! that DOES rise to the level of scandal. $34 DOLLARS, and you have to take the book!
JCanete
Jan 2017
#217
I don't know if you've noticed but almost every politician has been giving their reasons
NWCorona
Jan 2017
#38
He's being honest. We get corporate backing. I don't think that's in question. He's talking about a
JCanete
Jan 2017
#29
Enjoy your stay, but just a few small matters ... Comey, Putin, Assange, Crosscheck, vote suppressio
brush
Jan 2017
#126
"I heard it again after posting this and the word Bernie uses is actually "swallowed."
Cha
Jan 2017
#48
Make that "Wall Shtreet" (no, it's not a speech impediment, it's a gross mispronunciation)
George II
Jan 2017
#119
This isn't a coup though. Russia is not as powerful as our corporations, because our corporations
JCanete
Jan 2017
#75
It was a coup in the sense that Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, et al helped the repugs steal the election
brush
Jan 2017
#128
I'll accept that answer, but I feel like the same forces are in power in this nation that have been
JCanete
Jan 2017
#145
+1, and ignores Comey, voter suppression and Russia. Sanders thinks this was a free and fair electio
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#98
Funny how he's going around telling Democrats why they lost, but can't address why HE lost!
George II
Jan 2017
#132
BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! Comey, Voter suppression and Russia all the rest of the postmortems are guessin
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#95
Much of Sanders' primary campaign served as a precursor to Trump's General Election Campaign.
George II
Jan 2017
#141
Sanders, you will NEVER be president. You LOST the PRIMARIES by MILLIONS of votes
lunamagica
Jan 2017
#129
Thomas Frank is a hack but clueless white "progressives" cite his word as gospel.
forjusticethunders
Jan 2017
#224
Sanders whole campaign was based on a so-called revolution that never materialized
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#137
isn't that what being on point is? We could say the same of anybody mentioning Putin and Comey,
JCanete
Jan 2017
#182
Another statement to help cover up the influence from Putin. If we deny there was Russian influence
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#204